activity_detail

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. The description indicates that the tool returns detailed activity data including per-kilometer pace and heart rate zones. It does not disclose whether mutations occur (the name 'detail' suggests read-only, but is not explicit), what happens with missing data, or any authentication requirements. The output schema could clarify return structure, but the description should still convey non-obvious behaviors like if it returns time-series data or aggregates.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise at 1 clear sentence. It is front-loaded with the resource name and provides examples of data included. It could be slightly more efficient by stating the English translation but remains effective.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema (which can explain return fields), the description need not enumerate all return values. It covers the key unique selling points (per-kilometer pace, heart rate zones) that differentiate it from siblings. With one required parameter and no nested objects, the description is reasonably complete for distinguishing this tool from the many sibling activity tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single parameter 'activity_id'. The description compensates by stating it provides detailed data for a '指定活动' (specific activity), which implies that 'activity_id' identifies the activity. However, it does not add details on the format or source of the ID. Given only one parameter and strong contextual implication, this is mostly adequate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses Chinese to state '指定活动的详细数据（逐公里配速、心率分段等）', which translates to 'detailed data for a specific activity (per-kilometer pace, heart rate zones, etc.)'. The verb is implicit but clear from context ('detailed data' indicates retrieval). It specifies the resource ('指定活动的详细数据' for a specific activity) and gives examples of the data it returns (pace and heart rate breakdowns), distinguishing it from simpler activity retrieval tools like 'get_activity' and 'get_activity_splits'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_activity' (basic info) or 'get_activity_splits' (just splits). It implicitly positions itself as providing 'detailed data' with specific examples (pace and heart rate segments), which hints at use cases for in-depth performance analysis, but it lacks explicit guidance on exclusion or when a simpler tool would suffice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.